RE: Proposal for DMI/Debug extensions

I am on par with Stuart’s comment below.

Thanks,

Jerome


From: owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org [mailto:owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org] On Behalf Of Stuart Swan
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 8:29 PM
To: john.aynsley@doulos.com; Philipp A Hartmann
Cc: Bart.Vanthournout@synopsys.com; P1666 Technical WG
Subject: RE: Proposal for DMI/Debug extensions

I’m OK with John’s proposal .

Regarding the issue about “versioning”, it seems to me that all this affects is the name of the enum and the question of whether the rule about comparing versions (gp_version >= FULL_PAYLOAD_ACCEPTED) is included. Is that all ? If so I’m OK with leaving that rule out for now and for changing the name of the enum.

Having said that, I suspect that we may want to leverage this field in the future for other things (e.g. endianness handling) , so it may become a de facto version field in the future.

Thanks
Stuart

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.